Approaches to Writing

Different approaches to teaching writing are characterized by their different focuses:

the form, the writer, the reader. Although these approaches have developed as a reaction or as an attempt to improve the previous one, they all have a place in theory and in practice today (Raimes, 1991, p. 408). The Product Approach emerged in the late 1960’s, when the audio-lingual method was used in language instruction. Jordan defines this approach as being concerned with ‘the finished product’ (1997, p. 164).

This approach, also known as text-based approach, considers writing “as mainly concerned with knowledge about the structure of language”, and development in writing is regarded as “the result of imitation of input in the form of texts” (Badger,

2002, p. 1). Pincas states that this approach considers writing “as primarily about linguistic knowledge, with attention focused on the appropriate use of vocabulary, syntax, and cohesive devices” (cited in Badger and White, 2000, p. 153). In this approach, learning how to write has four stages: familiarization by analyzing the target text, controlled writing, guided writing and free writing. Leki criticizes this approach saying that what is called guided writing in this approach is in fact

‘disguised grammar exercises’ (1991, p. 8). The other main criticisms of this approach are that skills, such as planning, play a minor role, that the learners’

knowledge is undervalued, and that the social context in which texts are produced is not paid enough attention (Badger, 2002, p. 1). Another criticism is that presenting the students with an ‘aimed-for model’ and expecting them to produce a parallel text restricts them in what they can write and how they can write it (Jordan, 1997, p.

164).

The emergence of the communicative approach led to student-centred learning, and therefore resulted in focus on the writer, rather than the finished text, the meaning rather than the form, the process approach. One vital element of this approach is the feedback from the teacher and peers to enable the writer to make improvements to the writing produced. Keh points out that feedback in the form of comments, suggestions and questions a reader provides for the writer serves as a good opportunity for revision by offering a reader perspective (1990, p. 294). The process approach mainly regards writing “as the exercise of linguistic skills and writing development as acquisition which happens in situations where teachers facilitate the exercise of writing skills” (Badger, 2002, p. 1). The writing skills mentioned here are rehearsing or pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing. The focus in this approach is not the product, but the process the students go through to create it. The

rationale is that “error-free writing without substance is not as good as substantive writing even with errors” (Leki, 1991, p. 10), and “text evolves as a result of the writer’s efforts to explore, formulate, and reformulate meaning through revision”

(Dheram, 1995, p. 160).

Jordan holds that to help students with the challenging process of expressing themselves effectively in writing, the process approach, which “is concerned with the processes of writing that enable the product to be achieved”, is used. Especially lower level students are expected to benefit from this approach since “the processes involved match the mental processes inherent in writing in the mother tongue, namely, planning, drafting, rethinking, revising, etc.” (1997, p. 164). Leki believes that when students are not focused on grammatical mistakes, and instead they write freely to convey a message, they “develop confidence and a sense of power over the language …” (1991, p. 8). With this approach, the students, liberated from an approach emphasizing correct form and accuracy, can express themselves fluently.

They have “more opportunities for meaningful writing, are less dependent on the teacher, and work collaboratively with other students” (Richards, 1990, p. 110).

There are, however, some critics of this approach as well. Badger summarizes these criticisms as follows: These approaches “regard all writing as being produced by the same set of processes”, do not pay a lot of attention to the kind of texts writers produce, and may not “provide learners with sufficient input to carry out the writing tasks successfully” (2002, p. 1). One other criticism is that since EAP writing is very product-oriented and the conventions regarding the organization and expressions are very tight, an approach that encourages meaning, individuality and fluency may not be appropriate for it. Therefore, there is the need to familiarize students with these

conventions to help them operate within them (White, 1988 cited in Jordan, 1997, p.

168).

Hyland is also a strong critic of process approaches and he offers five limitations related to this approach. Firstly, process writing “represents writing as a decontextualised skill by foregrounding the writer as an isolated individual struggling to express personal meanings” (2003, p. 18). Language use is the outcome of ‘individual capacities’. Thus, while this “approach acknowledges the cognitive dimensions of writing and sees the learner as the active processor of information, it neglects the actual processes of language use” (Hyland, 2003, p. 19).

Secondly, these models “disempower teachers and cast them in the role of well-meaning bystanders” (2003, p. 19). The feedback stage is the most important step in this approach as explicit teaching of language is most likely to occur here. However, as language and rhetorical organization are only dealt with in the final ‘editing’

stage, students are not offered an understanding of how different texts are constructed in clear and recognizable ways in terms of their purpose, audience and message. The third limitation of this approach is that what is to be learned is not clear. Students are expected to discover appropriate forms as they are writing, aided by the teacher’s feedback and samples of expert writing which are not analysed. This attitude presupposes knowledge of target texts. L1 students may actually have this knowledge. However, L2 learners “do not have access to this cultural resource and so lack knowledge of the typical patterns and possibilities of variation within the texts that possess cultural capital”. These L2 learners are then forced to utilize “the discourse conventions of their own cultures and may fail to produce texts that are either contextually adequate or educationally valued” (Hyland, 2003, p. 19).

A fourth limitation, according to Hyland, is the role of the hidden American values in process methods. Principles such as personal voice, peer review, critical thinking and textual ownership “incorporate an ideology of individualism which L2 learners may have serious trouble accessing”. These norms of thought and expression may be clear and familiar to American students, but for students whose cultures do not involve the ideology of individualism, these norms may be difficult to recognize and accept (Hyland, 2003, p. 20). The final limitation that Hyland mentions is the “lack of engagement with the socio-political realities of students’ everyday lives and target situations”. This approach caters for the individual needs and personalities of learners and fails to offer them access to the resources to “participate in, understand, or challenge valued discourses”, thus failing to present them with “the cultural and linguistic resources necessary for them to engage critically with texts” (Hyland, 2003, p. 20).

After remaining the dominant pedagogical practice for more than 30 years, the process approach started to be replaced by more socially-oriented views of writing, which reject the liberal individualism (Hyland, 2003, p. 17). The genre-based approach has been “a response to the occasional excesses of a process approach to writing instruction. An emphasis on a process approach often disregards the importance of written form and, in effect, takes power away from learners, particularly those from different language and culture backgrounds” (Reppen, 2002, p. 321). For these learners from different backgrounds, unless teachers bring the forms and patterns of language use to conscious awareness, many writing conventions will forever remain unlearned. Emphasizing the process at the expense of the product ignores the need for direct instruction of features of text.

Nevertheless, students are still being assessed on features such as text organization and sentence structure (Reppen, 2002, p. 321-322). The genre approach, on the other hand, recognizes the vital role of language in written communication. Genre, therefore, “is, in part, a social response to process” (Hyland, 2003, p. 9).

Genres have their own specific structures and own grammatical forms that reflect their specific communicative purpose. Nunan notes that this communicative purpose will determine the characteristics of the type of discourse (1999, p. 280). The goal of genre pedagogies is to “explore ways of scaffolding students’ learning and using knowledge of language to guide them towards a conscious understanding of target genres and the ways language creates meanings in context” (Hyland, 2003, p. 20). A genre-based approach to writing regards writing as “essentially concerned with knowledge of language in context and the development of writing as a response to input in the form of texts” (Badger, 2002, p. 1).

There are strong similarities between this relatively new approach and the product approach and, in some ways, “genre approaches can be regarded as an extension of product approaches”. Like the product approach, this approach “regards writing as predominantly linguistic,” but unlike the product approach, it emphasizes that

“writing varies with the social context in which it is produced” (Badger and White, 2000, p. 155). The focus in this approach is on purpose. Different kinds of writing fulfill different purposes. In addition to purpose, there are some other important considerations such as the subject matter, the relationships between the writer and the audience, and the pattern of organization. The theory of learning in this approach, although not explicitly stated, is that “learning is partly a question of imitation and partly a matter of understanding and consciously applying rules”

(Badger and White, 2000, p. 155). In this approach, after a sample text is introduced and analysed, students manipulate the language elements and eventually produce the target text (Badger, 2002, p. 1).

According to Hyland, “genre analysis can … provide the vocabulary and concepts to explicitly teach the text structures we would like our students to produce. It places language at the center of writing development by allowing shared understanding and explicit guidance” (1992, p. 16). Genre theory suggests that explicit knowledge of language is a very important aspect of effective communication and “seeks to establish that it is the context-determined structure of a piece of writing in combination with its propositional content that gives the text its meaning” (Hyland, 1992, p. 17).

The genre-based approach has however been criticized for underemphasizing the skills needed to produce a text and causing the learners to be passive. The learners may be able to deal with the types of texts they have studied in the classroom, but not be able to tackle new forms of texts outside the classroom. Moreover, they are not likely to use the language creatively (Badger, 2002, p. 1). The Process Genre Approach emerged as a consequence of the dissatisfaction caused by the emphasis on the product in the genre approach, where skills like drafting, revising and editing are undervalued. The development of writing in this approach is regarded as involving knowledge about language (product and genre approaches), knowledge of the context in which writing takes place (genre approach) and the purpose for the writing (genre approach). According to the process genre view, writing develops by extracting the learner’s potential (process approach), and by providing input for the learner to respond (product and genre approaches) (Badger and White, 2000, p.

158). In the genre approach, writing takes place in a social situation and aims to achieve a specific purpose, which determines the subject matter, the writer/reader relationship, and organization, channel, or mode. To enable learners to be able to do so, the genre approach focuses on the language used in a particular text. In the process genre approach, the writers’ processes in producing a text by reflecting such elements as field (purpose of communication, the subject matter), tenor (who the audience is/the social role relationships), and mode (channels of communication) are included. After learners have identified the field, mode and tenor with the help of the teacher, peers or sample texts, they use the skills appropriate to the genre, such as redrafting and proofreading, and produce a text (Badger and White, 2000, p. 158).

A writing class employing a process genre approach starts with the situation that leads to a specific genre of writing. Then students produce some writing “in line with their own needs supported by the teacher, their peers and sample texts”

(Badger, 2002, p. 1). Therefore, where learners lack knowledge, there are three potential sources: the teacher, other learners and examples of the target genre. The most typical source of input on contextual and linguistic knowledge is language awareness activities, based on a corpus of the relevant genre as there are similarities between texts written for the same reason. These activities help learners to notice the kind of sentence structure and vocabulary used in this genre (Badger and White, 2000, p. 159).